|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2016 10:49:02 GMT
For light relief, another video on YouTube is a clip I extracted from a far lengthier one filmed outside the Nottingham Courts dealing with political corruption.
It just so happened that CaRT had set up a volunteers begging session nearby, and Leigh was accosted for support.
I rather think the young lady handled it nicely, which is more than her boss managed, and even Leigh was smiling throughout –
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 11:39:28 GMT
[/quote]Your right they do have the right to dispose of assets and no over sight on which assets they dispose of. The property dept has final say, not even the heritage dept can say no if they decide to sell.The 1m of land on the lee was spoken about on the other channel a long time before it happened. It's not the land it's self that is the problem but mooring rights which have gone with it, I believe it was a popular mooring spot for people cruising. [/quote]
Not quite - it is an offside site which previously had a very shallow edge with some reeds and birds. I went past it yesterday in my dinghy (doing the shopping run) and they have just finished the piling. Very large piles driven to a height a couple of metres above water level.
Not sure who owns mooring rights but will be interested to see if they put in a pontoon and ramp and do some resi moorings. There is space. That in my opinion would be a good outcome but something tells me it won't happen because people who live in flats do not like -lived on- boats. Specially if we dare to have coal fires on board !
Sorry to hijack the topic BTW
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2016 15:27:31 GMT
I was just reading through the CWDF ‘Rules’, having noted something mildly alarming in the JustCanals ‘rules’, and wanting to see whether the same applied in CWDF. If I am reading it correctly, the CWDF Disclaimer over content posted includes the notice that content posted remains the copyright of the poster, and that “ permission must be sought from the copyright owner before reproducing any material on this site”. Of course, one reproduces such material every time one hits the ‘quote’ button, so presumably a measure of proportion must be exercised by anyone seeking to get huffy about use of their content – BUT, it did get me thinking; nobody asked me whether I would permit CaRT and Shoosmiths to reproduce my copyright material for presenting to the Court!
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 15, 2016 17:02:50 GMT
I was just reading through the CWDF ‘Rules’, having noted something mildly alarming in the JustCanals ‘rules’, and wanting to see whether the same applied in CWDF. If I am reading it correctly, the CWDF Disclaimer over content posted includes the notice that content posted remains the copyright of the poster, and that “ permission must be sought from the copyright owner before reproducing any material on this site”. Of course, one reproduces such material every time one hits the ‘quote’ button, so presumably a measure of proportion must be exercised by anyone seeking to get huffy about use of their content – BUT, it did get me thinking; nobody asked me whether I would permit CaRT and Shoosmiths to reproduce my copyright material for presenting to the Court! Have you thought that Tony's posts are his copyright and he cannot access and control them and the ramifications plus the first disclaimer
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Oct 15, 2016 20:25:08 GMT
I was just reading through the CWDF ‘Rules’, having noted something mildly alarming in the JustCanals ‘rules’, and wanting to see whether the same applied in CWDF. If I am reading it correctly, the CWDF Disclaimer over content posted includes the notice that content posted remains the copyright of the poster, and that “ permission must be sought from the copyright owner before reproducing any material on this site”. Of course, one reproduces such material every time one hits the ‘quote’ button, so presumably a measure of proportion must be exercised by anyone seeking to get huffy about use of their content – BUT, it did get me thinking; nobody asked me whether I would permit CaRT and Shoosmiths to reproduce my copyright material for presenting to the Court! I suspect forum owners do this in an attempt to avoid any resposibility for what is posted on their site. This does not work as it is the site owner that will be named in a libel action rather than a poster. Copyright is infringed when a ‘substantial part’ of a work is used without permission. ‘Substantial’, in this context, doesn’t mean how much but how significant the part that is copied is, and can apply to a very small extract. There are some exceptions but only in limited circumstances (for example, for news reporting and criticism or review). I guess in the case of posting on a discussion forum you are accepting that others will reproduce your post for the purpose of criticism or review.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2016 21:08:33 GMT
I suspect forum owners do this in an attempt to avoid any resposibility for what is posted on their site. This does not work as it is the site owner that will be named in a libel action rather than a poster. This is not an area in which I know much of any use, but I do know of three websites that were threatened with libel actions by BW. One at least of those eventually folded, but the latest of which I was aware was the KANDA website, whose proprietor received a string of threatening letters from retained libel lawyers, demanding she retract an article, and apologise for mocking BW and certain staff, and that she make a voluntary contribution to their coffers to show some earnest of her repentance. They met with adamant refusal, and a confident response that there was nothing that had been said that could not be upheld as truthful if it came to a lawsuit. In that case [as it was with the others I knew of] it was the site owner who had published the offending article of course, not any contributor to a forum or commenter on any articles. It would be interesting to know whether BW or CaRT have ever followed through on such threats. I was threatened with a libel suit from BW myself, some years ago, if I did not retract my accusations that they were guilty of land registration fraud. To be fair, it was the barrister who did that off his own bat, speaking without instruction from his client, in front of one of the Chancery Masters. The Master was not particularly impressed with the demand, which he felt was probably inapplicable in what could amount to privileged communications, but the answer I gave when he queried my position, was something everyone needs to keep clear in their head when these things get bandied about – “Verifiable truth is a perfect defence”. For so long as you can demonstrate the truth of what you say, you can say anything; you will be impervious to any libel suit. BW/CaRT knew/know that, so I will never know the happiness of being placed in a position of being able to justify any of my accusations of fraud before a court; it is all bluff and bluster. How that fits into the scenario of the responsibility of a site owner for comments made within discussion groups is probably something else.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 6:27:07 GMT
snip... How that fits into the scenario of the responsibility of a site owner for comments made within discussion groups is probably something else. The publisher (site owner) carries the main part of the responsibility and in the case of a website etc will normally be given the chance to remove, they have 48 hours to remove and to supply details of the poster. If it goes to court then both the publisher, if they failed to remove within 48 hours, and if they can be identified the poster can be sued. Just the same as a newspaper publisher carries the can for things published in their paper. Defamation Act 2013 & The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013. That is the reason why the rules on CWDF have no weight in law. As you say the perfect defence is that it is the truth and being able to prove it. Another is that it is the opinion of the poster, but for that to work the post would have to explicitly say that. A note in the rules or elsewhere on the site will not carry any weigh.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Oct 16, 2016 7:50:22 GMT
snip... How that fits into the scenario of the responsibility of a site owner for comments made within discussion groups is probably something else. The publisher (site owner) carries the main part of the responsibility and in the case of a website etc will normally be given the chance to remove, they have 48 hours to remove and to supply details of the poster. If it goes to court then both the publisher, if they failed to remove within 48 hours, and if they can be identified the poster can be sued. Just the same as a newspaper publisher carries the can for things published in their paper. Defamation Act 2013 & The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013. That is the reason why the rules on CWDF have no weight in law. As you say the perfect defence is that it is the truth and being able to prove it. Another is that it is the opinion of the poster, but for that to work the post would have to explicitly say that. A note in the rules or elsewhere on the site will not carry any weigh. To add to the above, a site owners liability is limited as long as the owner does not have "actual knowledge" of the information. In the case of discussion forums, this is often true until a take down notice is received.
|
|
|
Post by emma on Oct 16, 2016 7:54:32 GMT
The delicious irony of discussing whether a forum's terms and conditions can change liability under law over a thread discussing whether a contract's terms can change liability under law
|
|
alan
Junior Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by alan on Oct 16, 2016 8:02:11 GMT
I was just reading through the CWDF ‘Rules’, having noted something mildly alarming in the JustCanals ‘rules’, and wanting to see whether the same applied in CWDF. If I am reading it correctly, the CWDF Disclaimer over content posted includes the notice that content posted remains the copyright of the poster, and that “ permission must be sought from the copyright owner before reproducing any material on this site”. Of course, one reproduces such material every time one hits the ‘quote’ button, so presumably a measure of proportion must be exercised by anyone seeking to get huffy about use of their content – BUT, it did get me thinking; nobody asked me whether I would permit CaRT and Shoosmiths to reproduce my copyright material for presenting to the Court! On another forum, on which I am a 'Senior Advisor', their 'rules' state :
All text, photographs, graphics, video or audio, whether uploaded directly, or linked to indirectly from other Internet web sites by users, will be hosted and stored on the XXXXXXXX.Com web site. By sharing any contribution (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) with us you agree to grant us, free of charge, an unrestricted license in perpetuity with permission to use the material in any way within this site and with due acknowledgement (including modifying or deleting it). In order that we can use your contribution, you confirm that your contribution is your own original work, is not defamatory and does not infringe any copyright laws and that you have the right to give us permission to use it for the purposes specified above.
It is an International Collectors Forum hosted in Canada so obviously the relevant legislation is probably different to that of the UK
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 8:32:19 GMT
The publisher (site owner) carries the main part of the responsibility and in the case of a website etc will normally be given the chance to remove, they have 48 hours to remove and to supply details of the poster. If it goes to court then both the publisher, if they failed to remove within 48 hours, and if they can be identified the poster can be sued. Just the same as a newspaper publisher carries the can for things published in their paper. Defamation Act 2013 & The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013. That is the reason why the rules on CWDF have no weight in law. As you say the perfect defence is that it is the truth and being able to prove it. Another is that it is the opinion of the poster, but for that to work the post would have to explicitly say that. A note in the rules or elsewhere on the site will not carry any weigh. To add to the above, a site owners liability is limited as long as the owner does not have "actual knowledge" of the information. In the case of discussion forums, this is often true until a take down notice is received. I thiink in the case of CWF that may not apply as it is so heavily moderated. Here of course it would easily apply.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 8:35:01 GMT
The delicious irony of discussing whether a forum's terms and conditions can change liability under law over a thread discussing whether a contract's terms can change liability under law I know I am getting old and the brain maybe going. Could you explain exactly what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 16, 2016 8:44:37 GMT
To add to the above, a site owners liability is limited as long as the owner does not have "actual knowledge" of the information. In the case of discussion forums, this is often true until a take down notice is received. I thiink in the case of CWF that may not apply as it is so heavily moderated. Here of course it would easily apply. I don't think "moderated" quite describes it Graham, . . . 'strangulated' could be more apt ! I would just like to add, as a general comment about this forum, . . . what a thoroughly pleasant change it is to be able to say and post just what you want to say without the likelihood of it being obliterated within minutes. Also very apparent is that the atmosphere here seems to be making for lively and genuine contributions, or differences of opinion, in the place of the rather artificially restrained exchanges and mind numbing trivia that has become the only sort of material that can survive on CWDF. Thank you DD and your truly awful site staff, . . you did me a really good turn when you banned me from your pathetic forum !
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 8:50:47 GMT
I thiink in the case of CWF that may not apply as it is so heavily moderated. Here of course it would easily apply. I don't think "moderated" quite describes it Graham, . . . 'strangulated' could be more apt ! Could be in which case less reason for it to give them any protection
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 16, 2016 12:39:57 GMT
The delicious irony of discussing whether a forum's terms and conditions can change liability under law over a thread discussing whether a contract's terms can change liability under law I know I am getting old and the brain maybe going. Could you explain exactly what you mean? I believe emma may have meant to refer to the lightship thread rather than this one. The central issue of the lightship topic has to do with CaRT’s claim that what they did was under authority of agreed Business terms, which according to them places their actions beyond reach of otherwise applicable legislation.
|
|